On July 3, 1940, Winston Churchill ordered the British fleet to sink French ships clustered off the coast of Algeria, lest they fall into the hands of the Nazis.

"An hour and a half later, the British Fleet attacked," according to Historian on the Warpath. "In less than ten minutes, 1,297 French soldiers were dead and three battleships were sunk. One battleship and five destroyers managed to escape."

This is the utilitarian principle pure and simple -- "the belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility," as the Free Dictionary puts it. Killing 1,297 of your allies to avoid hardware from falling into the enemies' hands, in hopes of winning a world war against pure evil, was justified in the circumstances, Churchill believed. History hasn't argued with him.

But few concepts are more vulnerable to corruption than utilitarianism, especially when it comes to human beings. If you're going to argue that some lives are more important than others, you'd better have a pretty convincing case. And you'd better make the tradeoff clear so people can decide if they are in favor of it.

That kind of corruption underlies vaccine injury denialism -- the hell with your child's death or disability from vaccine injury, the denialists implicitly argue, disease prevention is a greater good worth your sacrifice. But rather than acknowledge this -- that some lives matter more than others in this calculation, and they aren't yours -- they simply deny the injury. No one -- no real live child, teenager, or adult, and certainly not tens, hundreds, or hundreds of thousands of them -- must be allowed on the public record to have suffered from a demonstrable vaccine injury. Someone somewhere theoretically maybe, but not here and now, not on a comment thread, not in the form of a mom telling in anguished detail how her child died immediately following a vaccination. Not ever.

You could call this the Vioxx defense. While it is a given to objective observers that the painkiller was vastly overprescribed and Merck recklessly killed tens of thousands, and suppressed data that should have warned it and everyone else, the company chose to fight every individual claim in court. That led to enough mixed verdicts that plaintiffs eventually agreed to a $5 billion settlement, a blip on Merck's revenue radar. The creator of that strategy was promoted to head of Merck, where he remains, (Also a board member at Penn State, he was briefly put in charge of investigating the Sandusky scandal, until wiser heads saw that was a clear conflict of interest, something that never happens in Vaccine World).

Now another Merck vaccine, Gardasil, is getting the Vioxx defense. Shrieking trolls like the aptly named "lilady" (I pronounce it lie-lady) and law professors who've never passed the bar exam clutter up Katie Couric's website to dispute every parental account of damage from the vaccine, including the deaths of children.

What really underlies their argument, once again, is the utilitarian principle -- that death and injury from the vaccine are trumped by the public policy objective of reducing the supposed deaths that would occur from not using Garasil. But that principle can't withstand scrutiny. Not when it comes to a dubious vaccine produced by a corrupt manufacturer with an appalling track record of insufficient safety testing, and strong evidence of damage to real people in the real world. This of course is the whole corrupt meme that's slowly being dismembered, as vaccine injury from the bloated CDC schedule becomes widespread and affects older children and adults whose experience can be documented and recounted. In particular, the vaccine "court" coverup of the link with autism -- the link being that the creation of the court itself triggered the autism epidemic -- comes into clear view, thanks to thousands of parents and the dynamite article, "Unanswered Questions," by Holland et al.

The vaccine injury denialists are stuck defending a situation in which more people are harmed by prevention than the diseases supposedly being prevented. And that's not even utilitarianism!

Call them the futilitarians. Or maybe the F-U-tilitarians. Every once in a while the grinning death's head does shine through: the hell with your child's death or disability from vaccine injury.

From John Stone: "Ken Reibel puts his foot in his mouth on Katie's blog. I have commented: "Seasoned vaccines public relations professional Ken Reibel admits below that HPV vaccines may have seriously injured as many as 4000 girls in the US and argues that this is acceptable collateral damage for the program:

"'Of the 22,000 HPV vaccine related VAERS reports filed from 2006 to 3/2013, 92% were non-serious (fainting, soreness at injection site, nausea, etc.) So that leaves 1,760 "serious" reports. Even if we double that number and round up to 4,000, it comes nowhere near the 50,000 cases of cervical cancer reported in the US since 2006.'"

Four thousand serious injuries that include deaths. A trifle.

--

Many people, including our own John Stone, Katie Wright and Anne Dachel as well as a number of regular AOA commenters, did epic battle with the trolls, although it was hard to match the 800 comments left by California law professor Dorit Reiss alone! (Her time might be better spent studying for the state bar exam. It's hard, I hear.)

Here's one comment that caught my eye, from "minority view":

"Something that is puzzling me about this discussion. I've read a number of the accounts of adverse reactions to the HPV vaccines. The explanation being offered is that the reactions are either minor or coincidental.

"That might work, but what about the accounts of multiple reactions? A girl who reacts after the first dose, then seems to be mostly okay until she gets a second dose and becomes ill AGAIN after the third dose.

"One time could be a coincidence. Two times is a bit freaky. Three times sounds a lot like an adverse reaction."

That is exactly right -- challenge-rechallenge is accepted as evidence of causation, everywhere but in troll land. And what about the fact that the Japanese have stopped recommending it due to widespread reports of chronic pain and injury?

Oh, never mind.

--

Few things in orthodox autismland irritate me as much as reading about all the new and groovy things Johns Hopkins University is doing to figure out the cause of autism. Hopkins, close readers of this blog and our book of the same name will recognize, is where Leo Kanner first described autism in 1943. To make a long story (namely, our book) short, he had a golden opportunity to recognize its origins in the ethylmercury fungicides and vaccine preservative that went on the market shortly before, and to which those families had amazing backgrounds of exposure. (See our ten minute and four second version, the video on this page titled How Mercury Triggered the Age of Autism.) Instead, he started playing the parent blaming game.

Someone whose opinion I care about told me this week: "how can anyone seriously dispute what you’ve uncovered with Kanner’s original subjects? They can’t – and I suppose that’s why they ignore and shun us so effectively."

So excuse me while I choke on my Christmas cookie when I read the headline (courtesy of our indefatigable media editor Anne Dachel): "Autism experts join forces in new center at Johns Hopkins." The story begins, "We do know this: Very little about autism is straightforward." No! Everything about autism is straightforward, because, as my colleague Mark Blaxill point out, epidemics are simple. But to continue:

"Through the pioneering work of scientists at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a handful of others scattered throughout the university, and colleagues at the nearby Kennedy Krieger Institute, Johns Hopkins has a leg up in solving autism's many riddles, and health and societal consequences. Now the university has a single place to unite that expertise: the newly created Wendy Klag Center for Autism and Developmental Disabilities."

They don't have a leg up on it, they have a blanket over it. Pardon the acronyms, always telltale of bureaucracy above all, but "the CADDE, one of six such centers funded by the CDC, had dutifully fulfilled its mission, notably launching the Maryland sites of the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, which aims to monitor the number of cases of autism and other developmental disabilities throughout the country, and the Study to Explore Early Development, or SEED, which looks to find the causes of autism that may be related to genetic and environmental risk factors."

ROLF!

There's a challenge-rechallenge element here, speaking of "environmental risk factors." Autism -- "unknown to me or anyone else heretofore," Kanner wrote in 1943 -- was first observed shortly after the commercialization of ethylmercury, and the connection to Kanner's kids is striking. (The eldest child in the case series was born in 1932, the same year it was first used in vaccines. The father of Case 2, a plant pathologist, was experimenting with ethylmercury fungicide "dusts" when his son was born. And on and on.)

The autism epidemic was first observed shortly after the 1986 vaccine court law led to an explosion of new vaccines and a huge increase. The rise began in 1988, the same year the first new mercury-containing vaccine was recommended.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sorry Ken, it doesn't help does it? There was no intent to quote you out of context nor did I. No amount of context would change the meaning of what you said. And once again you are trolling by suggesting it without providing any evidence.

Is it utilitarian to truncate my comment in order to make it seem like I "put my foot in my mouth", when I was really just correcting someone on the figure they were using? Or is it utilitarian to delete this comment so your readers won't know that John Stone is a utilitarian troll?

Thank you, Dan, for this very provocative article. I think in the case of vaccines, the utilitarian principle is simply profit. These people realize that vaccines have the potential to do tremendous damage. They'd be pretty stupid if they didn't and they've done everything they could to cover it up. The potential for harm was behind their demand for indemnity or else they threatened to go out of the vaccine making business. I can't believe pharma and health officials are blind to the fact we're the most drugged and vaccinated people on earth and the most chronically ill. They don't care. All the claims of vaccine damage, all the settlements confirming that, all the people now collectively called "anti-vaccine" are proof that something is wrong. The greater good for them is sustaining profits.

What Churchill faced was truly a moral choice. Since the French refused to turn their ships over to the British and France had already surrendered the previous June, Churchill had to prevent the Germans from using the French fleet to attack Britain. He could argue it was for "the greater good." Those who deny vaccines are harming our children have such no humanitarian motives. For them it's self-protection and financial gain. Otherwise they'd be working to make vaccines safer, they'd be studying the claims of vaccine damage along with how effective they are.

And speaking of Vioxx, why didn't the Vioxx scandal have a greater impact on the public's view of big pharma? Merck also makes vaccines. If they were responsible for tens of thousands of deaths from an unsafe drug that they claimed didn't have these side effects, why should we trust that their vaccines are safe? The same FDA that approved Vioxx, okayed the MMR. Shouldn't we be questioning all this?

I don't have time right now to look for Kathy's comment, but anyone is welcome to copy any or all of this info to that thread:

It should be noted that a coauthor of the Danish study you cited, Dr. Poul Thorsen, is wanted for wire fraud, money laundering, and embezzlement.

"According to United States Attorney Yates, the charges and other information presented in court: In the 1990s, THORSEN worked as a visiting scientist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, when the CDC was soliciting grant applications for research related to infant disabilities. THORSEN successfully promoted the idea of awarding the grant to Denmark and provided input and guidance for the research to be conducted. From 2000 to 2009, the CDC awarded over $11 million to two governmental agencies in Denmark to study the relationship between autism and exposure to vaccines, between cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and between childhood development and fetal alcohol exposure. In 2002, THORSEN moved to Denmark and became the principal investigator for the grant, responsible for administering the research money awarded by the CDC."
U.S. Attorney’s Office – Northern District of Georgia
Autism Researcher Indicted For Stealing Grant Money
Thorsen Allegedly Absconded With Over $1 Millionhttp://www.justice.gov/usao/gan/press/2011/04-13-11.html

"Thorsen allegedly diverted over $1 million of the CDC grant money to his own personal bank account. Thorsen submitted fraudulent invoices on CDC letterhead to medical facilities assisting in the research for reimbursement of work allegedly covered by the grants. The invoices were addressed to Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital. The fact that the invoices were on CDC letterhead made it appear that CDC was requesting the money from Aarhaus University and Sahlgrenska University Hospital although the bank account listed on the invoices belonged to Thorsen.
In April 2011, Thorsen was indicted on 22 counts of Wire Fraud and Money Laundering.
According to bank account records, Thorsen purchased a home in Atlanta, a Harley Davidson motorcycle, an Audi automobile, and a Honda SUV with funds that he received from the CDC grants."
Office of Inspector General, U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services
Fugitive Profileshttps://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp

Aarhus University was Thorsen's employer in Denmark. The university issued a statement in January 2010 saying that, "a considerable shortfall in funding at Aarhus University asso- ciated with the CDC grant was discovered" and that "it has come to the attention of Aarhus University that Dr Thomsen has continued to act in such a manner as to create the impres- sion that he still retains a connection to Aarhus University after the termina- tion of his employment by the university. Furthermore, it has come to the at- tention of Aarhus University that Dr Poul Thorsen has held full-time positions at both Emory University and Aarhus University simultaneously. Dr Thorsens double Full-time employment was unauthorised by Aarhus University, and he engaged in this employment situation despite the express prohibition of Aar- hus University."
Aarhus U statementhttp://www.rescuepost.com/files/thorsen-aarhus.pdf

How very curious. He had a full-time job working for Emory U in Atlanta, GA (which is closely affiliated with the CDC) and his Danish employer Aarhus U knew nothing about it. Why did he not disclose it? What was he doing to earn the Emory salary while living in Denmark? Why did he think he could get away with this embezzlement? And why hasn't he been brought to trial? He remains at liberty, and continued to do work for the CDC after his indictment.

It is quite remarkable that this story has hardly made the mainstream news at all. This is real corruption. What Dr. Wakefield did was study children's serious health conditions in an effort to help alleviate their suffering.

Linda,
What you say is true: I, for example, have no health insurance, as I cannot work full-time, but have too much in assets to qualify for Medicaid. However, just for the record, I think that Planned Parenthood would carry out Pap exams and other screening on terms that would be affordable for anyone, free if necessary. I used to go there for low-cost birth control, and they were always kind and completely professional.

I sent that article, along with a commentary by me, to an email group I have, saying that "being Wakefielded" has now expanded to those doctors and researchers who are courageous enough, and who have integrity, to expose the horrors of GMOs.

Michelle B, I, for one, would love to learn more about your use of chelation. I am a great believer in " Stop the mercury and let the body heal"- and even better would be to get the mercury out. I too would like to know about the Cutler protocol. I did spend quite some time watching you tube pieces of Chris Shade, PhD, who has what seems to be a somewhat different approach to removing mercury- but he seems to largely treat adults. Could you write about your experiences for AOA- or give me your contact through AOA ?

Ugh. I have been very busy lately and have not been able to follow along with this most recent Gardasil stuff (ie Katie Couric show particularly).

Of course I click on the Katie Couric "HPV Conversation Continued" thread this morning (as I am finally finding myself with an extra hour of time) and see that someone by the name of Kathy M. has just posted a link to the study done in conjunction with Poul Thorsen MD as some backup for her beliefs. Can someone get over there and let her know that this guy is a fugitive on the run for embezzlement? lol! This is the crap that we have to deal with? Wow.

'Following the retraction of the Seralini et al scientific paper which found health damage to rats fed on GM corn, over 100 scientists have pledged in this Open Letter to boycott Elsevier, publisher of the Journal responsible.'

If doctors were good at what they are supposed to do, we wouldn't have vaccines.

If doctors are so smart, why do we have vaccines?

Or I could word it like this: On a continuing basis, so many doctors have been so bad at their jobs that somebody looked at the huge teaming cesspool of allopathic failure and decided vaccines would result in better survival rates. And some doctors and their business groups were and are so dense they don't see it as the slap in the face that it is to their profession.

Dan, you mention that the associate professor Dorit Reiss has not passed the California Bar. She is probably not even eligible to take the bar. She did not go to an American Law school. she went to a law school in Jeruselum and if you read her CV, you will see that she obtained what is the equivalent of a BA and a JD (according to her) from this, so called, law school…all in THREE years!

It is doubtful her classes there have any relevance to the laws taught in the this country and would only be relevant for international law courses which would be a specialty area, not basic law.

She spent 6 years getting her PhD at Berkeley and then was hired at Hastings as an associate professor. The classes she teaches have nothing at all to do with the topics she is choosing to spend absolutely all of her time on the internet on. Unless you want to count the Politics that are involved in the marketing of vaccines. Search deep enough and you will find a tie between Dorit, Insel and Offit

Perhaps people should complain to Hasting's law school regarding the actions of this so called, "associate professor." Students pay good money to go to school to learn about the law. They have the right to know that one of their professors is not even a lawyer and in addition, is making money from a pharmaceutical company and spends all her time on the internet talking about a subject to which she has no expertise. Never mind the fact that the subject she is obsessed with has nothing to do with her background. ….

There is certainly more to this story.

Lilady….sounds a lot like "autism diva"

These guys are all leaving a paper trail a mile long of their ties. They have to put their names in order to get paid…they have to show their bosses where they have been. But, it will also show where they have been :) The law professor is ruining her chances at Hastings…if she ever really had one. Also look into any money that has poured into Hasting's law school (similar to how CHOP gets a 1 million dollar chair which of course is really Paul Offit's salary but allows him to say he is a doctor at CHOP. Same situation here more than likely

All medical schools are deeply in pockets of pharma cartels, hence there is very small chance that J. Hopkins would seriously go after vaccine manufacturers and pushers. On the other hand, if Dr. Doshi is allowed to work on autism-vaccine connection without interference from pharma and their lobbyists, there might be a chance of uncovering the truth, however we may expect him to be discredited and dragged through the mud.

Different problem as I explained below - it could be that thousands of young women are maimed and killed without registering in epidemiological studies (even presuming they are properly conducted) but with the rise of developmental and immune disorders over the last two and half decades there is a wider question to answer about vaccines.

@Jeanette Bishop excellent question! Yes, the alum adjuvant is free to combine with anything in the body, most likely with the large amounts of DNA released as a result of necrosis the adjuvant causes at the injection site. The result of that is systemic autoimmunity such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis.

One of the many aspects of the scrolls' script that has me shaking my head is their referral to so many deaths from cervical cancer each year and their assertion that pap smears don't work, so the HPV vaccine is the only solution, with no mention that there have been almost 50 million people in the US with no access to health care - including pap smears. Pap testing can't work if women are barred from getting it because they don't have insurance or the money to pay out of pocket. That alone can account for the sad death rate from a treatable disease as long as it is caught early - and it isn't hard to catch it early as it takes a decade to develop. Interesting how none of them who are so concerned about preventing cancer deaths aren't advocating for making sure that all women have access to yearly pap screening. They are so transparent in that there is no real discussion. They robotically do not deviate from the assigned mantra, which is why they now are for the most part, talking to themselves.

I also question their numbers. After seeing the inflated yearly flu death stats, I'm skeptical of any numbers they throw out. I don't remember what the true yearly death rate from cervical cancer is, but I'm pretty sure I've read that the numbers in the US are actually low as a reason why HPV vaccine in the west didn't make sense.

Regarding using aluminum adjuvants in a "placebo," couldn't the risk for developing an autoimmune response with such a placebo possibly exceed a similar risk of the adjuvant combined with an antigen as there isn't an injected "disease agent" for the immune system to target in the placebo?

"Someone somewhere theoretically maybe, but not here and now, not on a comment thread, not in the form of a mom telling in anguished detail how her child died immediately following a vaccination. Not ever."

Thanks. This is such a mental pretzel to articulate. If you don't bring out a lot personal details as why you believe there is a connection with a vaccine and injury (and sometimes if you do) you are guaranteed to get some form of "prove it" or even "you can't prove it and we're going to do our best to make you miserable talking about it" response. If you sound like you have a pretty good case for suspecting vaccine reaction you might at best get the "oh, very sorry, but (of course you know, right?) all pharmaceuticals have risks (and of course this one was necessary)" response with little interest in evaluating whether the risk was worth the actual benefit. I think this response is really for the "healthcare" professionals themselves. It works for them I guess and they just assume it works the same for everyone else?

@ndavis,

You might want to read about the "placebos" used in the "unvaccinated" HPV trial groups:

Look, the most important issue is the vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. We need to stay focused on that goal. By ignoring the results of the HPV-vaccinated versus HPV-unvaccinated work that shows that adverse events occur with equal frequency in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups you give succor to those who will claim that a critically-important study should not be done because we will just similarly ignore any other results that we don't like. I think that that is a huge mistake.

Excellent article, Dan! And thank you for pointing out once again that were it not for the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, there would be no epidemic of "autism," not to mention no epidemics of diabetes 1, asthma, seizure disorders, unbelievable GI issues in our children, life-threatening peanut allergies, a multitude of learning, behavioral, and sensory disorders, childhood cancers, the list goes on. I mention this in case there are new readers not familiar with the tragic consequences of the 1986 Act which removed ALL liability for vaccine injuries and deaths from vaccine-making pharmaceutical companies and from those who administer vaccines. No other industry is afforded such protection, nor SHOULD any industry ever be afforded such protection. With no liability, there is zero motivation to produce safe products. They just laugh all the way to the bank, and appear to have no consciences, or morals.

Add all of that damage together, and throw in the damage from GMO-laden food and pesticide-laden air and water, and it's no wonder American children are sicker and more disabled than ever (and it's not just children, either). The next generation will be worse (hard to imagine), because now you will have all of these chronically sick, and in some cases mentally disabled, people reproducing together, and whose children will be subjected to even more poisons and toxins than their parents were, with less, and maybe no, opt-outs. This, of course, assumes they have viable fertility left. The results will be nothing short of catastrophic.

The warning bells have been ringing now for decades. I have read articles and books regarding vaccination going back a number of decades that predicted exactly what we are seeing now. Your book, Dan, was yet ANOTHER loud warning bell that has been ignored by the powers that be. They will have to answer one day for both their actions and inactions, indeed they will.

Dan,
What I find saddening is the complete lack of humanity shown, and the alarming vitriol spewed, by the vast majority of these hired and well compensated pharma trolls who spend enormous, seemingly unlimited amounts of time posting repetitious, snarky, online comments. One such paid troll, challenged others to post a response in defense of a well known poster here at AOA. Personally, Dan, I don't have the time to spare, nor any desire, to engage these nasty, belligerent types on any issue at all, much less the issue of vaccine injury.

How I spend my time is my choice, not theirs. These insignificant trolls have no power or control over me, and they never will. Personally, I find it far more gratifying and far more important spending my time directly engaging those elected to political office, than wasting my time debating paid pharma trolls. I refuse to debate someone employed specifically for the purpose of hurting and denigrating others in order to advance the agenda of multi-national corporations. Meeting my elected representatives, and forging positive relationships with them, trumps the "whack-a- troll" game every single time.

Dan:
I'm glad that you pointed out the challenge/re-challenge phenomena in the Gardasill injury report that Couric noted. There are examples of this phenomena in other cases in the NVICP, just one of the reasons why the vaccine cultists are so determined to NOT have any public inspection of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Regarding Gardasill and Ms. Couric's report, even defaulting to the utilitarian construct, we need to keep in mind that the vaccine confers five (5) years of "immunity." This ought to be considered when thinking about the injuries from this drug (but won't be) by PR spin-doctors like Reibel. Even worse, regular exams can catch these cancers early on.

What happened to these young women - and other victims of vaccine injury - is a national disgrace. We at least owe them honesty.

Thanks for doing battle with these forces for evil--what would we do without the Age of Autism warriors. As an aside I often wondered why the Germans went into North Africa because my history of WWII is more or less based on movies like Patton. When I went to Russia I found out (for the first time in my life) that Hitler was short of oil at the beginning of the war and I suppose he went into North Africa to have access to the oil? So, yes, in all accounts the North African episode of the war was extremely utilitarian on both sides--no doubt. I agree with the entry that says end the epidemic by refusing to vaccinate. I agree. Don't vaccinate your infant, your toddler, your pre-schooler, your grade schooler or your high school student. Let them get the chicken pox, the measles, the mumps, and then they will have immunity for life. Everyone in my generation had all those diseases--everyone, and no one I know died. The potential side effects from the vaccines so outweigh the diseases they supposedly prevent it's a complete no brainer.

Hi, Michelle - I fixed "Babbled" - autocorrect got you? :) We are submissions based and happy to share effective treatments in the form of case histories. To my knowledge (and I could be wrong) we have not been presented with a submission on the protocol. Thanks. Kim

Many thanks Dan. Also note my further remark to Ken Reibel when he tried to distract from the point by quoting out of context a study authored by Diane Harper:

"But she has subsequently warned...against the long term efficaciousness, and it has got nothing to do with the point I made about the ethics of sacrificing young women now for some conjectural benefit. 4000 would be an awful lot of young lives wrecked but it probably would not even register as statistically significant. It would be a completely unethical way to tackle the problem of cervical cancer."

As Bernadine Healy (former NIH director) pointed out by implication the level of damage would have to be huge to even register against background noise in an epidemiological study (I do believe it was in a Katie Couric news broadcast).

Notwithstanding Healy, of course, the population effects of vaccines in relation to autism were so gross that had to keep on massaging the figures, but it could also be the case that you could have thousands of cases of serious damage and it wouldn't even register.

In the case of the two studies that Dorit Reiss and the trolls keep on touting the disclosures of conflict are:

"Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; LAD and PS are and have been involved in other studies with unconditional grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, and Merck; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work."

"Financial Disclosure: This study was funded by Merck
& Co. Dr Klein receives research support from Merck
& Co, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, and sanofipasteur
for unrelated studies. Dr Jacobsen and Mr Slezak
received research funding from Merck & Co for another
study related to HPV4. Mr Slezak served as an unpaid
consultant to Merck & Co. Dr Chao received research
funding from Merck&Co, Amgen, and Pfizer for
unrelated studies. Drs Velicer and Liaw are employees
of Merck & Co."

But maybe AoA "ought to look into" recovery via mercury elimination. As much as I respect and appreciate all that you've done here, I'm still baffled as to why you haven't covered Andrew Cutler or his chelation protocol.

Mercury removal and ultimately AUTISM recovery are straightforward. After years of diligently removing mercury (using ALA, DMSA, and DMPS) I have a once non-verbal boy who displayed nearly every ASD marker now recovered.